Hernandez v. Saxon Mortgage Services

Before the Court is Three Arch Investment Corp.'s ("Three Arch") Motion to Intervene, Docket No. 51.[1] The Court has considered Three Arch's Motion, Docket No. 51, Plaintiff's Opposition, Docket No. 56, and Three Arch's Reply, Docket No. 61. The Court finds this motion appropriately resolved without oral argument. Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, Three Arch's Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a mortgage and foreclosure-related lawsuit brought by a pro se plaintiff. Plaintiff is the previous owner of real property located at 12113 Vista Linda Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Docket No. 51, at 2. On or about March 26, 2006, Plaintiff executed a note secured by a deed of trust on the property.[2] The deed of trust was recorded on March 30, 2006. Id., Exh. B.

Former defendant NovaStar[3] originally serviced Plaintiff's loan. NovaStar transferred the loan to former defendant Saxon Mortgage Services on or about November 1, 2007. Docket No. 36. Thereafter, on or about May 7, 2010, Saxon transferred the loan to former defendant Ocwen Loan Services, LLC., for servicing. Id.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") was named as a nominal beneficiary under the deed of trust. MERS assigned the deed of trust to former defendant Bank of New York Mellon ("BNY") on or about March 21, 2009. Id. On March 23, 2009, BNY substituted former defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation ("Quality") as trustee under the deed of trust. Id.

On or about March 24, 2009, Quality recorded a notice of breach and default of election to cause sale of real property under the deed of trust. Id. Plaintiff began defaulting on her mortgage payments as early as December 1, 2008. Id. A notice of trustee's sale was recorded on April 30, 2012. Id. A trustee's sale was held on May 31, 2012, and BNY purchased the property via credit bid in the amount of $375, 000. Id.

On October 29, 2013, Three Arch purchased the subject property from BNY.[4] Docket No. 51, at 3. After purchasing the property, Three Arch discovered that both Plaintiff and another individual, Torn Benson, were living at the subject property. Id. Accordingly, Three Arch filed an Unlawful Detainer action and served the occupants of the house on January 28, 2014. Id.

Three Arch has filed the instant motion asserting that it seeks to protect its property interests and make use of its investments. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to File Points and Authorities

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2, "[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." LR 7-2. Here, although Plaintiff filed an opposition, she did not address Three Arch's request to intervene and, thus, failed to file any points or authorities in opposition to its request. Accordingly, Plaintiff has consented to the granting of the motion.

B. Intervention of Right

To intervene as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), the applicant must claim "an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and [that] the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.